Heim's Mass Formula, Quantum Electrogravity, "Hyperdrive"

writes:

I looked into this a bit more and for example the electron mass they
predict (they dont quote an error so I assume the value is supposed to
be exact) is around 27 standard deviations from the measured value

The prediction depends on the Gravity Constant G among other
constants. AFAIK, G is has been established to only about
3 digits so far.

See http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...rmula_1989.pdf
and http://www.heim-theory.com/downloads...ed_Results.pdf
page 12 in particular.

Also they predict a mass of an e0 ("neutral electron" apparently) at
similar mass to the electron. Yet this particle has never been observed
in any particle collider experiments to date.

AFAIK, nobody has yet looked for a neutral electron in the predicted
mass range.

--
Manfred Bartz

Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
"mhodgkin" wrote:

I looked into this a bit more and for example the electron mass they
predict (they dont quote an error so I assume the value is supposed to
be exact) is around 27 standard deviations from the measured value
(this calculation can be found on wikipedia). That means the theory is
inconsistent with the data from experiments.

But isn't this merely a matter of one of their
input parameters having much less precision than
that currently available from experimental
results, which are ridiculously precise and so have
ridiculously small standard deviations?

IIUC, what these folks have is a theory that for
the first time is spitting out results that are
excellent approximations of the experimental
measurements of particle masses, and doing it for
the first time "from first principles". That they
have to use as a starting point physical constants
(IIRC, it's the "gravity one") less precise than
the known values of what they are trying to predict
will certainly produce results less accurate than
the measured ones, the important thing is that they
are producing those results _at all_; not meeting
current known precisions in the predicted values
isn't a useful criticism of the theory, merely a
motivation to measure that one input parameter
(or perhaps all of the input parameters) to
precision equal to the precision desired in the
outputs, _then_ see how the output accuracy is.


Well who knows since they dont quote their theoretical values with any
error. Given this I can only assume they are claiming the theoretical
error is so small when quoting to however many significant digits they
use the error is zero. In this case the quoted error is not compatible
with the current world average from the PDG group at Berkeley.

If they quote an error and it the measured value falls within one or 2
standard deviations of this then that is a different matter.







xanthian.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

If it was weakly interacting to the extent it would not have interacted
with a particle detector then it would have been seen by now by virtue
of one of many analyses searching for "missing energy" in the detector.


Apparently OPAL searched for this type of effect and didnt find it
(according to wikipedia). I found the paper he

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/...WW&SEQUENCE =

I suspect there will be other analyses that have been done that rely on
missing energy would also be sensitive to production of such a
particle.

Really the onus is on the heim-theorists to tell people specifically
how to search for a neutral electron type particle and to explain why
it wouldnt have been seen already in analyses done, given it has such a
low mass (0.5 MeV).

Yes, the Higgs boson has not been observed. Neither has supersymmetry.
But they do have reasons why we would not have seen them to date in the
theories and they can be tested soon so we can rule them out or
incorpate them into current theories. In the case of the Higgs the
theory assumes the mass is sufficiently lareg we could not have seen it
with the "low" energy experiments we have used so far. But the heim
neutral electron has a very low mass, which is why lots of people are
saying it would have already been seen.

The key points (to my mind) for heim-theory is really it must make
specific predictions that can be tested, it must be consistent with all
experiments performed to date (which means they need to calculate
errors on the predicted masses so we can see the precision they can
calculate them).

Also why dont they show the quark masses in their table? I needs to
have all the particles we know about, because if the calculation fails
for even one particle then the theory does not work as it is.














The measured value is from the PDG group and is usually constructed
from all available measurements to date (but not always).

This is is also interesting and relevant:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/tom... edc64301e511

Originally Posted by manofsanATyahoo.com

Hi,

No flames plz, I'm not claiming to believe in any of the following, but
was simply just seeking some enlightened answers.

As you know, a couple of speculative theorists named Hauser and
Droscher have presented a paper proposing some faster-than-light
"hyperdrive" based on the speculations about "quantum gravity" or
"electrogravity" by a fellow named Burkhard Heim. Apparently his
speculations favored the belief that electromagnetism and gravity can
be directly interconvertible, via particles he called "gravitophotons".

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...25331.200.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory

http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=1680

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=16902006

One of the more notable features of the equation he came up with, was
that it is apparently able to calculate the masses of fundamental
particles to high accuracy. So that's what I'm posting here to ask
about -- does Heim's formula indeed do this, as is claimed? If so, then
how does it do this when no other mainstream accepted framework exists
to do this?

Has Heim somehow cheated by arbitrarily contriving a formula to force
it to come up with values already known from measurement? It's just
that it seems extraordinarily unlikely for a formula to be able to
calculate a variety of known fundamental particle masses to high
accuracy, if it was just randomly cobbled together.

Is there perhaps even just a portion of his formula that may posssibly
have merit, while other parts should be discarded?

Hauser and Droscher have conjectured that it should be possible to
prove whether or not gravitophotons exist, by performing an experiment
which involves rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field.

"""rotating a toroidal mass above a superconductive coil
generating a powerful magnetic field"""
Maybe that it received the plans of the machine from the Véga planet (as in the movie with J. Foster).
Rémy

This guy's got a patent on an inflationary vacuum spaceship based on
this principle.

http://borisvolfson.com/

Forgive my lack of familiarity with the neutral electron prediction,
but does it mean that Heim's theory predicts a particle with the same
mass as the electron, but having no charge?

Hmm, but where would such a particle reside? Certainly not going to be
orbiting the nucleus, if it has no charge. Nor would it have a strong
force interaction to trap it in the nucleus.

Perhaps the neutral electron prediction is just some 'trivial solution'
which is just a manifestation of something else, as you say.

Interesting -- how would one even look for a neutral electron? A
neutrino-style detector?

Could the e0 actually be the neutrino? After all, neutrinos are
neutral, and have been found to have slight mass. Could the neutrino
be the "neutral electron"?

Does Heim's theory predict the existence of a separate neutrino
particle, distinct from the neutral electron?

Most subatomic sized particles do not live inside atoms...so there is
no reason a neutral electron would need to for it to exist.

Yes, you would look for it in a similar way to that which a neutrino is
detected. The electron neutrino has too small a mass to be the neutral
electron in their theory (and anyway they also list the electron
neutrino in the table I think).